With 77 days to go before the first ballot, the combination corporation/political party called Americans Elect opened up a system today for delegates to draft presidential candidates to appear in its proprietary, privatized online presidential nominating system. The official rules of Americans Elect create three standards by which a draft candidate can qualify to appear on the ballot.

Standard 1: If a candidate has been one of the following… “Vice President, United States Senator, Member of Congress, Presidential Cabinet Member, Head of a federal agency, Governor, Mayor of any of the largest 100 cities in the United States, Chairman or Chief Executive Officer or President of any corporation or nonprofit corporation or philanthropic organization with 1,000 or more employees, President of a national labor union with 100,000 or more members, military officer who has attained flag rank [General or Admiral], Ambassador, and President of an American-based university with more than 4,000 members” … then the candidate is Automatically Qualified as a presidential-quality candidate and has to collect just 10,000 clicks of support from 10 states to appear on the ballot.

Standard 2: If a candidate does have the experience referenced above, but the Americans Elect’s corporate Candidate Certification Committee steps in and decides that the candidate is qualified to be president anyway, “in view of the Contingently Qualified Candidate’s equivalent experience and demonstrated capability,” then the candidate is deemed Contingently Qualified as a presidential-quality candidate and has to collect 50,000 clicks of support to appear on the ballot.

Standard 3: A candidate not Automatically Qualified or deemed to be Contingently Qualified by the Candidate Certification Committee can still qualify for the ballot IF the Candidate Certification Committee vote to reject the candidate was not unanimous. In order to obtain ballot qualification, a majority of all people who have ever been registered as Americans Elect delegates will have to visit the Americans Elect website and affirmatively vote to support the candidate’s access to the ballot.

Meanwhile, the Republican race for the presidential nomination has continued to grow more bitter between Romney and Gingrich. With Romney winning in relatively moderate areas like New Hampshire and southern and central Florida, Gingrich winning in more conservative areas such as South Carolina and northern Florida, and both candidates having plenty of money, it appears at this time that their battle will be protracted and very negative in tone.

Tom Knapp notes

This is Romney’s fourth time out in this cycle. He’s 2 for 4, and has yet to break 50% anywhere. The majority of Republican primary voters keep saying “not Mitt.”

In past cases like this, the big parties have come together – Obama and Clinton, Reagan and Bush. Could this time be different?

Several candidates formerly seeking the Republican presidential nomination have already jumped ship and are seeking the nomination of other parties. Gary Johnson has switched to the Libertarian race, which most observers believe he is leading at the moment. Buddy Roemer is (last I checked) still seeking the Republican nomination, but is shut out of the debates, polls and media coverage, and is also seeking the Americans Elect nomination. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, endorsed Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin in the 2008 general election, currently leads in number of supporters for the Americans Elect nomination (although he would have to express interest in it to be nominated), and has refused to rule out a run as something other than a Republican. Donald Trump briefly sought the Reform Party nomination in 2000, and also briefly sought the Republican nomination for this year (but dropped out before any primaries or caucuses). He has changed his registration to independent and speculated repeatedly about an independent or alternative party run.

News analysts on MSNBC have been speculating tonight about Gingrich running as an independent/alt party candidate should he lose the Republican nomination to Romney. One complication he would face if he makes such a decision is that by the time the Republican contest is decided, it would be very difficult to get on the ballot in all the states in a very short time frame, something mainstream media analysts rarely consider when discussing the possibility of various big party politicians or celebrities mounting last minute alt party/independent runs. Unlike Ron Paul, Gingrich does not have a natural base of support with an existing alternative party with ballot access in most states such as the Libertarian Party. It would seem that Americans Elect could conceivably fill the gap.

Although Americans Elect has no official party platform, it has described its mission as “bridging the vital center of American politics” and has put out a variety of indications that its ideological orientation is most likely to be centrist. The Americans Elect ticket is supposed to be “balanced” by having the VP nominee be from a different party than the presidential nominee, which could present a problem for an ideological candidate such as Gingrich. Gingrich has exploited economic populist themes against Romney to some degree, such as attacks on Bain Capital. It is conceivable that he could find some common ground with Democrats on those issues, although many of his views on economic issues would have to change before he would align more with Democrats than with Republicans on the economy.

If Gingrich wins the Republican nomination, Romney could indeed “bridge the center” by running on the Americans Elect ticket, and he would have the personal wealth to finance such a run, although not to the same degree as NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, a frequent focus of speculation about the Americans Elect nomination, or even Donald Trump. Bloomberg and Trump are both currently independents, so it’s possible that if one of them were the VP nominee it would be deemed a balanced ticket under Americans Elect rules (whether it would or not is not really clear to me).

Could Gingrich or Romney be the Americans Elect Nominee? Your opinions welcome in the comments.

-paulie

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Baldwin goes on to further detail his case against Gingrich, as well as Santorum and Romney, and to elaborate on why he supports Ron Paul.

Paul, who was the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 2008. Baldwin actively supported Paul in 2008 and is doing so again this year, and in return Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin in the 2008 general election.

Meanwhile, 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, who famously backed out of Ron Paul’s joint appearance with Baldwin, independent Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney because he would not appear on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney,” has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Recent Barr columns include The bizarro world of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (published yesterday), and several previous columns expressing his support for Gingrich.

Barr, Gingrich and McKinney all represented Georgia in Congress.

More of Baldwin’s article here.

Howard Phillips, founder of The Conservative Caucus (TCC) and its Chairman since 1974, has resigned, saying that recent health problems required that he “direct my energies on my health, my family life, my spiritual priorities, and my writings.” He affirmed his gratitude “for the opportunities God has given me to work with such fine people and I remain wholeheartedly supportive of the important work and mission of this organization.”

Phillips, now 70, led TCC through successful battles to block ratification of the SALT II Treaty, begin the SDI missile defense program, repeal the Catastrophic Coverage Act, prevent passage of Hillary Clinton’s socialized medicine scheme, and persuade the House of Representatives to impeach President Bill Clinton.

He visited all 50 states in campaigns against the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, and the nuclear freeze. He also held organizational meetings in all 435 congressional districts during the early years of TCC.

His leadership in TCC’s Victory Over Communism project included support for anti-Communist freedom fighters in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, repeal of the Clark Amendment, Congressional approval of the MX missile, a 600-ship navy, and even a visit to Eastern Europe and the Baltic states as the Soviet empire began to show signs of collapse.

Phillips is a graduate of the Boston Latin School and Harvard, having served as President of the Harvard Student Council. He was one of the founders of Young Americans for Freedom.

Prior to founding The Conservative Caucus, he was Republican Chairman of Boston and campaign manager for Richard Schweiker’s successful 1968 Senate campaign in Pennsylvania.

During the Nixon administration, Phillips headed the President’s Council on Youth Opportunity and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), and won nationwide conservative acclaim when he attempted to eliminate the OEO programs.

The Constitution Party (originally named the U.S. Taxpayers Party) nominated Phillips as its candidate for President in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

TCC’s Board of Directors expects to choose a new Chairman early in 2012, with Darrell Castle serving as interim Chairman. Castle was the 2008 Vice-presidential nominee of the Constitution Party.

Wikipedia notes that Jewish by birth and a native of Boston, Massachusetts, Phillips converted to evangelical Christianity in adulthood and has been associated with Christian Reconstructionism.

Phillips first campaign for president in 1992 ended in a seventh place finish. The campaign received 43,369 votes for 0.04% of the total vote. In 1996 the Phillips campaign finished sixth with 184,656 votes for 0.19% of the total vote. In the 2000 election he received 98,020 votes for 0.1% of the total vote and a sixth place finish.

Phillips’ original intention was to have Pat Buchanan run for President; however, when Buchanan did run for President outside the Republican Party in 2000, it was as the Reform Party candidate.

The 2008 ticket that Castle vas VP on, led by Chuck Baldwin, got the party’s best result yet, 199,750 votes, and was endorsed by Ron Paul.

Wikipedia also notes

Buchanan’s 2000 Reform Party running mate Ezola B. Foster switched her membership to the Constitution Party in 2002. Buchanan stated on the September 7, 2004 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, “There is a chance I would vote for [Michael] Peroutka.” However, he later penned an endorsement of President George W. Bush in the pages of The American Conservative.

U.S. senator Bob Smith announced his switch from Republican to the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1999 to seek its 2000 presidential nomination. Smith later claimed that anti-New World Order ideologues within the party resisted his candidacy due to his Roman Catholicism. He continued his campaign as a non-partisan independent but ceased the campaign soon thereafter and returned to the Republican party to assume a Senate committee chairmanship. In 2008, he began writing editorials on the Constitution Party’s web page, fueling speculation that he would seek its presidential nomination again, although he had endorsed Rep. Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination. He requested that his name be withheld from consideration in a March 2008 letter to CP supporters.
Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist ran for Congress with the American Independent Party in 2005, but has since rejoined the Republicans.

Author and WorldNetDaily columnist Jerome Corsi launched a brief campaign for the 2008 nomination but in July 2007 decided to return to writing. Former Reagan Administration official and Christian activist Alan Keyes had actively sought the Constitution nod after ending a bid for the GOP nomination.

…

In 2010, former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo ran for governor of Colorado as a Constitutionalist. He received 36.8% of the vote finishing in 2nd place. Despite losing the election, Tancredo managed to secure major party status for the Constitution Party in Colorado, as that state requires a party to surpass 10% in a gubernatorial election to qualify for such status.

In 2010, former Republican Representative Virgil Goode (VA-5) accepted an appointment to the National Executive Committee of the Constitution Party.

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

Read more…

In 1836, former frontiersman and congressman Davy Crockett led a band of volunteers all the way from their home State of Tennessee to San Antonio, Texas, in order to join up with William Travis and his small company of soldiers, and help defend the Alamo–and Texas independence–from Mexican General Santa Anna and his army of over 5,000 seasoned troops. To men such as Crockett, Travis, Jim Bowie, and the rest, State independence and freedom was worth fighting and dying for. To a man, they each proved that. Therefore, it is fitting to wonder what Davy Crockett would think about his home State of Tennessee joining with federal agencies in establishing random checkpoints throughout the Volunteer State.

According to a local Tennessee news source, “You’re probably used to seeing TSA’s signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

“‘Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate,’ said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

“Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.”

The report went on to say, “The Tennessee Highway Patrol checked trucks at the weigh station with drug and bomb sniffing dogs during random inspections.”

Continue reading….

A couple of weeks ago, I was honored to attend a private gathering of influential conservative leaders just outside Washington, D.C. While many differences of opinion were expressed on a variety of subjects, there was one subject on which every single attendee was unequivocally united: the US economy is soon going to tank! As one man said, “In a couple of years, these could be the ‘good old days.’” Another thing the august assembly was agreed on was that the only Presidential candidate in the two major parties who would actually have the guts to do what needs to be done is Congressman Ron Paul. And the national press corps (including FOX News) is doing everything in its power to make sure that the American people do not hear much of what Dr. Paul has to say for that very reason.

Neither the Democrat nor Republican parties in Washington, D.C., have any intention of addressing the real reasons why the American economy is on the verge of collapse. The only thing the two major parties–and the elites who dominate them–can see is the next election. The lust for power is the one thing that both the Donkeys and the Elephants share in common. And neither party is willing to disappoint their constituents who are feeding at the teat of that fat hog known as Washington, D.C.

Democrats want to extend Washington’s insatiable appetite for deficit spending in order to promote the Welfare State. And Republicans want to extend Washington’s insatiable appetite for deficit spending in order to promote the Warfare State. Conservative or liberal, hawk or dove, Christian or secularist, Democrat of Republican: they all are lining up at the back door of Uncle Sam’s kitchen begging for a handout!

Except for Ron Paul, no one is giving more than ten-second sound bites of lip service to what is necessary to conquering the real culprits of America’s economic malaise: expunging the fiat money system and returning America to hard money principles, dismantling that cabal of international criminals known as the Federal Reserve, returning America’s foreign policy to its constitutional parameters of non-interventionism, eviscerating those federal programs and entities not prescribed by the US Constitution, getting rid of the income tax, and taking the United States out from under the power and influence of the United Nations. No one else has the guts to even seriously talk about these issues, much less to actually do something about it! And if the “powers that be” successfully defeat Dr. Paul’s candidacy, it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam who gets elected President in 2012 (that is, unless a constitutionalist third-party candidate miraculously wins the Presidency)! Republican or Democrat, it will be business-as-usual. And that means this house of cards that these corrupt politicians and bankers have been playing with all these years is going to come crashing down. In fact, the signs are ubiquitous that the crash has already begun.

Writing for BlacklistedNews.com, Michael Snyder has recently produced two trenchant reports that show the handwriting on the wall for America’s financial future. Snyder begins this first report saying, “Goldman Sachs is doing it again. Goldman is telling the public that everything is going to be just fine, but meanwhile they are advising their top clients to bet on a huge financial collapse. On August 16th, a 54 page report authored by Goldman strategist Alan Brazil was distributed to institutional clients. The general public was not intended to see this report. Fortunately, some folks over at the Wall Street Journal got their hands on a copy and they have filled us in on some of the details.

“It turns out that Goldman Sachs secretly believes that an economic collapse is coming.”

Snyder concludes his report saying, “Sadly, the 54 page report mentioned above is right–we really are facing a global debt meltdown and we really are heading for an economic collapse.

“You aren’t going to hear the truth from the mainstream media or from our politicians because ‘keeping people calm’ is much more of a priority to them than telling the truth is.

“The debt crisis in the United States is unsustainable and the debt crisis in Europe is unsustainable. Right now we are in the calm before the storm, and nobody knows exactly when the storm is going to strike.

“But let there be no doubt–it is coming.

“The amazing prosperity that we have enjoyed for the last several decades has largely been a debt-fueled illusion. It was a great party while it lasted, but now it is coming to an end and the aftermath of the coming crash is going to be absolutely horrific.

“Keep watch and get prepared. We don’t know exactly when the collapse is going to happen, but it is definitely on the way and now even Goldman Sachs is admitting that.”

See Snyder’s report at:

http://tinyurl.com/3tcg4ro

And in a second report, Michael Snyder writes, “If you think the U.S. economy is bad now, just wait for a few months. Things are about to become absolutely nightmarish. None of the long-term economic trends that are hollowing out our economy have been addressed and more bad economic news seems to come out virtually every single day. Now there is constant talk of the “next recession” in the mainstream media. But did the last recession ever truly end? The number of good jobs continues to decline, more stores are closing, incomes continue to go down, credit card debt and student loan debt are soaring, the housing market resembles a corpse, the number of Americans living in poverty continues to rise and government debt is at unprecedented levels. We are losing blood fast, and almost all of our leaders are either too corrupt or too incompetent to be able to do anything about it. The U.S. economy really and truly is about to go into the toilet, and if something is not done very quickly we are going to experience a complete and total economic disaster in this nation.”

Snyder then goes on to highlight 30 signs that the US economy is about to go down the drain. Read his report at:

http://tinyurl.com/3fxqjua

And for those of you who believe that such talk is just “Chicken Little” déjà vu, you need to know that many economists, politicians, and even federal police agents are personally preparing for a prolonged economic collapse. And if you’re not preparing, you’re either not paying attention or you’re preferring to ignore the warning signs. Neither option is healthy.

I have told readers before of my friend Chuck Coppes’ phenomenal book, “America’s Financial Reckoning Day.” Once again, I urge readers to obtain this book. I further follow Chuck’s recommendation that you seriously consider getting as much as you can of your fiat paper currency converted into hard assets ASAP! The gold and silver markets are being manipulated downward, but these tactics will not last forever. When the crash occurs, hard assets will skyrocket! That’s what virtually every economic forecaster that I have any confidence in is saying. And I believe them!

To obtain Chuck Coppes’ book or to contact him regarding obtaining precious metals, go to:

http://tinyurl.com/3dvebvw

So readers will know up front, Chuck has felt led to support my work, and I am equally enthusiastic about supporting his work. I personally know Chuck, as he moved his business from his home State of Arizona, and has joined with us here in the Flathead Valley of Montana. (And we need many more businessmen to consider doing the same!)

As an aside, for those of you who are considering joining us here in the Flathead Valley of Montana, here is the email address of George Hudson, who, himself, “escaped” from California to join us in Montana. George has taken it upon himself to help people with the information and resources they might need to help relocate to the Valley. His email address is: hudnut1940@gmail.com

An old maxim says, “Forewarned is forearmed.” Ladies and gentlemen, we need to prayerfully and seriously weigh the evidence that is before us and make decisions NOW to prepare ourselves for the days to come. We need to heed the words of Scripture that twice say, “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)

I further highly recommend that people who are serious about preparation, relocation, and related matters glean heavily from the works of James Wesley, Rawles and Joel Skousen.

Rawles’ web site is:

http://www.survivalblog.com/

Skousen’s web site is:

http://www.joelskousen.com/

After having attended the above-referenced meeting near Washington, D.C., I am more convinced than ever that we did the right thing in relocating to the beautiful Flathead Valley of Montana. I also came away from that meeting with the firm conviction that my friend was right when he said, “In a couple of years, these could be the ‘good old days.’”

A recent major investigative report by the Los Angeles Times sheds light on what all this “war on terror” is actually costing–and actually accomplishing. According to the report, “A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.

“But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?

“‘The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,’ said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.”

The LA Times report goes on to say, “Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and–with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack–one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.

“The expensive and time-consuming screening now routine for passengers at airport boarding gates has detected plenty of knives, loaded guns and other contraband, but it has never identified a terrorist who was about to board a plane. Only 14 Americans have died in about three dozen instances of Islamic extremist terrorist plots targeted at the U.S. outside war zones since 2001–most of them involving one or two home-grown plotters.”

The report also notes, “Large sums of Homeland Security money, critics complain, have been propelled by pork barrel politics into the backyards of the congressionally connected.”

See the LA Times report at:

http://tinyurl.com/3u3olzx

Add to the LA Times report a report by Madison Ruppert. In the report, Ruppert notes that it is clearly the Bill of Rights–especially the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms–that are suffering the most egregious attacks from the federal government’s “war on terror.”

Ruppert concludes his report saying, “In short, despite the fact that all the statistics and data in the world directly contradict the report’s findings and the claims made by clearly biased ‘experts’ on the threat of terrorism, especially of the homegrown variety, the HSPI [Homeland Security Policy Institute] and other bodies continue to fearmonger and lie to the American people to keep us scared while they empty our pockets and continue their imperialistic adventures in the Middle East and now North Africa.”

See Ruppert’s column at:

http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=15638&print=1

Back to the Times report, not only do we Americans have about an equal chance of dying at the hands of a terrorist as we do dying in our own bathtubs, we have a much greater risk of dying at the hands of prescription drugs–something lawfully encouraged and tightly controlled by the US government. According to a recent report, more people now die each year from prescription drugs than from automobile accidents. That’s some 37,000 deaths via prescription drugs annually! (Come to think of it, how many people do you know who have died from marijuana?) And as hard as it will be for some people to accept, this number is gigantically greater than those who die from hard drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine. In fact, the prescription drug Vicodin, by itself, has killed more people than cocaine and heroin combined.

See the report on prescription drug deaths at:

http://tinyurl.com/6eh8bw3

So, what has this trillion-dollar “war on terror” accomplished? If it’s not making us more secure, what is it doing? Well, for one thing, it has created a stupendous surveillance society. Virtually every piece of public communication is now captured and stored by the federal government. Surveillance cameras are now ubiquitous throughout the United States. We have a gargantuan federal police department (which is anathema to the US Constitution): the Department of Homeland Security. We have thousands of Orwellian laws, most of which were spawned by the Patriot Act. And more and more often, law enforcement agencies are demonizing US citizens for their religious and political beliefs and statements–even categorizing them as potential domestic terrorists based simply on those religious and political beliefs.

To refresh reader’s minds regarding how Americans have been labeled, profiled, and denigrated as “terrorists” because of their religious or political beliefs, please peruse the material on this web page:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=52

Fortunately, it does appear that the combination of an emerging police state and a declining economy that has resulted from this “war on terror” is finally starting to catch the attention of the American people. According to a Brooking Institution report, “Six in ten Americans believe that that the United States weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined.”

A Rasmussen report further revealed, “As with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone.”

Beyond that, “A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.”

See the BlacklistedNews.com report containing the above survey results and more at:

http://tinyurl.com/3v2n538

The LA Times is right to question what Americans are getting for their $75 billion a year contribution to the “war on terror.” Some could even argue–with convincing data–that the “war on terror” is in reality a “war on freedom.”

A fascinating piece at IBTimes. New information shows that in addition to the TARP funds and bank bailout that Americans know about, there were secret loans from the Federal Reserve to private banks. And, did you know that our US Federal Reserve secretly loaned money to foreign banks? What is that about? My comments on the article (and its status quo bias) are below. A January 2011 video with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader about the Federal Reserve is: here.

(excerpt from) International Business Times
Federal Reserve Lent Private Banks $1.2 Trillion During Financial Crisis’ Acute Stage
IBTimes Staff Reporter | August 21, 2011 9:10 PM EDT

The U.S. Federal Reserve lent private banks about $1.2 trillion in order to maintain credit market liquidity, bank function, and prevent the U.S. economy from plunging in to a depression.

The largest borrower was Morgan Stanley (MS), which received as much as $107.3 billion in loans, Bloomberg News reported Sunday, while Citigroup (C) received $99.5 billion, and the Bank of America (BAC) received $91.4 billion. Bloomberg News obtained the information through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The loan totals far surpass the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 banks received from the U.S. Treasury Department. Up until now, the Federal Reserve action was not made public…

What’s more, half of the Federal Reserve’s top 30 borrowers, as ranked by peak balances, were European firms…

My comments, as posted at the IBTimes website:

This “article” is so bogus. It is at least an opinion piece, if not a propaganda piece for the bankers, Washington, and the status quo. It is also comical to believe that Bloomberg news is wonderful and successful for filing the Freedom of Information Act which led to this bank loan news. Ron Paul has been working on this project for years. And, the fact that Ron Paul’s HR 459 bill to audit the Federal Reserve is picking up sponsor after sponsor is probably why the Federal Reserve decided to answer this request, and answer to people more fully than it has in the past. The information is fascinating. Get our US taxpayer money back from the foreign banks! Fire the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary. Then, let’s rethink the Federal Reserve.

Related information:

Ron Paul website: here

Ralph Nader website: here

“Audit The Federal Reserve supported by Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul”  from May 2010: here.

Archival videos of a press conference from September 10, 2008. Ron Paul is standing up with Presidential candidates from third parties who had endorsed a set of principles. The principles were endorsed by Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin who all attended the press conference.

Video below: Dr. Ron Paul speaks
Lists 4 principles the candidates agree on
at 3 min 35 sec – Request audit of Federal Reserve

Video below: Ralph Nader speaks
Four areas of agreement
at 1 min 43 sec – Nader on Federal Reserve

Last Saturday, Texas Governor Rick Perry unofficially launched his 2012 Presidential candidacy in Houston (in my opinion). Speculation is he will officially announce his intentions this weekend in South Carolina. If he does declare his candidacy, many election-watchers say Perry will become the GOP frontrunner, due to an extremely weak field of declared candidates. If Perry does declare his candidacy, everyone will know that the Houston event was staged for the purpose of launching his Presidential bid, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

If Perry declares his candidacy (and I’m confident he will), people should also realize that the Houston event was a precursor to the type of campaign that Perry will use throughout the Republican primary season. As a fellow Texan, it was not lost on Rick Perry how George W. Bush obtained the Republican nomination–and eventually the White House. In short, Rick Perry is going to use the G.W. Bush model to win a Presidential election.

Think about it: G.W. Bush won the White House after an extremely unpopular liberal Democrat had been President. Barack Obama’s popularity is even lower than Bill Clinton’s was–and Clinton was only the second President in US history to ever be impeached! Bush’s campaign boss, Karl Rove, brilliantly painted G.W. Bush as being a wholesome “born again Christian,” which played very well with a Christian electorate that was tired of being embarrassed by a lying, philandering reprobate living in the White House.

In 2012, the American electorate, especially the Christian electorate, is totally fed up with an incumbent President whom everyone knows to be extremely sympathetic to Muslim and Marxist ideologies. Plus, a sizeable percentage of the American people truly suspect that Obama was NOT born in the United States and is, therefore, not even qualified to be President. This is the stage upon which Rick Perry appears. It is a stage very similar to the one George W. Bush stepped onto in 2000. And just as Bush played the “born again Christian” card to the max in the 2000 Presidential campaign, so Rick Perry appears to be ready to do in 2012. That is what the Houston event was all about last Saturday.

Billed as “A Day of Prayer and Fasting,” the event solidified Perry’s preferred status among evangelical Christians. With the help of the American Family Association (which reportedly contributed up to a million dollars to the event), James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and Cornerstone Church’s (San Antonio) Pastor John Hagee, Perry is all but assured of cornering the “born again” vote, just as G.W. Bush did in 2000.

One would like to think that America’s Christians learned something from the two GWB administrations, but it doesn’t appear that they have. I think it is safe to say that Dobson, Hagee, et al, would endorse ANYONE nominated by the Republican Party. They have already proven that, have they not? James Dobson went so far as to humiliate himself by endorsing big government John McCain in the 2008 general elections, even after vowing publicly that he would “NEVER” support McCain. During the primaries, however, the Republican candidate who can “talk the Bible” the best can expect the support of these clueless evangelical leaders. And this time around, it appears that Rick Perry is that man. You can rest assured if Perry doesn’t win the nomination, Dobson and Hagee will be right there for whoever does.

For the record, I invite anyone out there who still labors under the delusion that George W. Bush presided over some kind of “born again” Christian administration to check out the vast amounts of information I have compiled on my web site that exposes Bush as being just another big government elitist, who did as much (or more) to strip America of its God-given liberties as any other President in history. See the record here.

Furthermore, even cursory research will uncover the fact that the Bush and Clinton families have long collaborated together in criminal activity on a massive scale–activity that, in all likelihood, continues to this very day. (I still say, don’t be surprised if Obama dumps Joe Biden as his Vice President and puts Hillary Clinton on the ticket before next year’s elections.)

Of course, G.W. Bush was never held accountable by evangelical Christian voters for his unconstitutional conduct. All they cared about was Bush’s Christian rhetoric. And it does appear that is all they care about today. As a result, Rick Perry will prove to be a formidable candidate in the GOP primaries.

I have said over and over again that I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States! The pious rhetoric of political candidates means nothing!

If I hire a plumber to fix a drainage problem at my house, I am not interested so much in where he goes to church, or whether he teaches Sunday School, or what denomination he claims. I am hiring him to fix my plumbing! We sign a contract, he and I. I promise to pay him “X” amount of dollars, and he promises that when he’s finished, my toilets will flush. Christian or not, I expect him to honor the terms of his contract.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we elect a civil magistrate (at any level), we are entering into a contract with the one we elected. We gave them our support, which allowed them to obtain public office, and they promise (before Almighty God) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They do not promise to be “good Christians.” They do not promise to be “good Republicans.” They do not promise to be “good conservatives.” They take an oath before God (they sign a contract with the American people) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it is our job as citizens to hold our civil magistrates to their oath! In fact, if any elected office holder were a TRUE Christian, he or she would take their oath even more seriously, would they not?

Instead of being excited about a candidate claiming to be a Christian, or claiming to pray and read his or her Bible, we need to get excited about a candidate who is serious about preserving the liberties of the American people, and who makes a commitment to protect and preserve the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution!

Before we talk about Rick Perry’s commitment to prayer and fasting, let’s find out if Rick Perry believes that there must be a Declaration of War before America begins invading, bombing, and occupying foreign countries. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority as President to use US military forces against American citizens. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority to give billions and trillions of dollars away to foreign countries. Let’s find out if he plans to commit US military forces to the whims of the United Nations Security Council. Let’s find out if he supports the Military Commissions Act. Let’s find out if he supports the Patriot Act. Let’s find out if he believes the US government has the authority to use super-computers and advanced technology to continue to turn the United States into a giant surveillance-society. Let’s find out how serious he is about closing that southern border: speaking of which, what did Rick Perry do as governor of the border State of Texas to stop illegal immigration? And while we are on the subject of Border States, what did Rick Perry do to stop the NAFTA superhighway? Before we get excited about Rick Perry being a “good Christian,” let’s find out if he supports the Council of Governors, or the North American Union, or the Continuity of Government, or Agenda 21. Let’s find out if Perry will launch a Justice Department investigation into the ATF’s (under Barack Obama and Eric Holder) clandestine operation of providing firearms to Mexican drug gangs. We could go on and on with these kinds of questions.

The sad truth is, our illustrious evangelical leaders on the right are just as culpable in the dismantling and deterioration of the American republic as are those on the political or religious left! Both sides are willing to give their favored politicos a pass on constitutional governance. And ladies and gentlemen, that is why it hasn’t mattered to a tinker’s dam whether a Democrat or Republican, “liberal” or “conservative” is in the White House! And that’s why it won’t matter in 2012.

Besides, if James Dobson and John Hagee were truly interested in protecting and preserving the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, they would be promoting the candidacy of Ron Paul. But, unfortunately, they wouldn’t do it in 2008, and they won’t do it in 2012. They lack both the courage and the sagacity.

We don’t need another George W. Bush in the White House. For that matter, we don’t need another Jimmy Carter in the White House. What we need is a President (governor, mayor, sheriff, etc.) who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States!

On January 11, 2011, I spoke before a packed house of some 500 people who had braved below zero temperatures to hear me speak here in my adopted hometown of Kalispell, Montana. Among the journalists who were there were the Flathead Beacon’s Dan Testa and the Daily Inter Lake’s Caleb Soptelean.

Soptelean’s report on my speech was published on January 13, 2011, in the Inter Lake. That report can be read at:

http://tinyurl.com/5sdukdn

Testa’s report was published in the Beacon’s January 17, 2011, edition. See Testa’s report at:

http://tinyurl.com/6l9sqkm

The day after Testa’s report appeared in the Beacon, the paper’s Editor-in-Chief, Kellyn Brown, wrote an opinion column about my speech. His column can be read at:

http://tinyurl.com/6ageboj

After reading Kellyn’s column, it was apparent to me that I needed to respond with a column of my own. Kellyn agreed to publish my response, and my column is in the current edition of the Flathead Beacon. See it at:

http://tinyurl.com/4aydt47

I believe it would be beneficial for my readers nationwide to read, not only the two newspaper reports and editorial regarding my move to Montana–and the speech I gave on that Tuesday night–but also my response to the Beacon’s Kellyn Brown. Therefore, what follows is the column that I wrote for the Flathead Beacon.

[Start of the column sent to the Flathead Beacon] I want to thank Kellyn Brown for welcoming me to the Flathead Valley with his editorial in the January 28, 2011, Flathead Beacon. I am honored that he would devote an entire editorial to my speech. I wish, however, that Kellyn had been a little more accurate in his assessment of what I said. After all, he is the paper’s Editor-in-Chief.

Kellyn opened his column saying, “Chuck Baldwin moved to Montana a few months ago and has vowed to mold the state into what he thinks it should look like.”

Kellyn, where and when did you hear me say that? My family and I (including 5 heads of households, and a total of 18 people–11 of whom are here now, and 7 more arriving this spring) did not move here to mold the wonderful State of Montana into anything. We came here because we love the mold that makes Montana what it is: an independent, self-reliant, freedom-loving State. If we wanted to mold Montana into someplace else, we would have moved (or stayed) there!

Kellyn then takes great liberty with one statement I made (out of an hour-long speech) by saying, “The litmus test for becoming a ‘real Montanan,’ according to Baldwin, is determined by whether you agree with him.”

No, Kellyn. My litmus test is Montana itself. In my opinion, Montana truly is “The Last Best Place.” This is especially true for people who love independence and liberty. And I think Kellyn’s comments prove that what I said is true.

During the past two years, I have traveled over 60,000 miles to virtually every crack and corner of America. And after seeing this vast “fruited plain” from coast to coast and border to border, I am convinced that we made the right choice to move HERE. What caused our family to uproot ourselves (at great financial cost–even loss, I might add) and come to the Flathead (to stay) is the very spirit that Kellyn himself demonstrates in his column.

Historically, Montanans are not content to be lumped in with every other State or area. Montanans have always been known as rugged individualists. They don’t like people in other states or cities telling them what to do. And that includes Washington, D.C.! It’s not that Montanans are snobbish; they just don’t appreciate people moving here from other places and then trying to turn this State into the State they came from. Hooray! If my family and I had wanted to turn Montana into Florida, we would have stayed in Florida!

Unfortunately, not everyone born in a place appreciates the heritage and principles that make that place unique. For example, not everyone born in America appreciates the independent spirit that founded this great country. Observe how many US citizens work to bring America under the power and influence of the United Nations, or the World Bank, or some other international cabal; or how many people look to Washington, D.C., for all sorts of handouts, etc. Samuel Adams sure had some scathing words to say regarding those who chose to kowtow to the Crown, rather than stand for independence and freedom.

Consider, too, how many people born in Montana chose to leave Montana. Plus, how many people call Montana home only during the summer months? Compare that to the number of people who chose to make Montana their home by migrating here from other states. It takes more than one’s birthplace to make one a genuine contributor to what makes a place unique.

Did not our Lord say basically the same thing when he said of non-relatives, “Behold, my mother and brothers”?

I was born in Indiana, but haven’t lived there since 1971. Am I really a Hoosier?

And, yes, Kellyn, I do believe we have a “church problem.” I think I’m qualified to make that statement. After spending 35 years as a pastor, I’m well acquainted with the cowardice and compromise that is pervasive throughout mainstream “Churchianity.” That’s why Liberty Fellowship, which we established here in Kalispell, is anything but a mainstream church. I don’t blame people for not wanting to go to church. If all I had to choose from were these churches that teach this fallacious Romans 13 “Obey-The-Government-No-Matter-What” nonsense, I wouldn’t want to go either!

Was I proud to receive Ron Paul’s endorsement for President in 2008? Absolutely! Will I be a candidate for governor–or some other office–here in Montana? Many Montanans are urging me to do this, but I am a long way from making my mind up about that.

I want to do whatever I can to help Montanans preserve and maintain their independence and individuality. How I can best do that is yet to be determined. In the meantime, I’m just proud to be a MONTANAN! [End of the column sent to the Flathead Beacon]

To give readers an update: in the six weeks that Liberty Fellowship has been meeting, we have averaged between 150-200 each service, and I can tell you that the spirit of freedom is alive and well at every meeting. I can also tell you that every week we meet or hear about people who have either just moved here, or who are visiting here in preparation for a move, or who have written telling me that they are moving here. EVERY WEEK!

Last Sunday, a man was in the service that had just moved here from Seattle. There is a family attending Liberty Fellowship (LF) that just moved here from Australia. They have been reading my columns for years. Another family attending LF just moved here from Sacramento, California. A couple of weeks ago, two families were here from Michigan: they are moving here. Another family was here from Illinois: they are moving here. A young couple attending LF just moved here from Arizona. The list goes on and on.

I invite newer readers to catch up on my family’s move to Montana by going to this web page:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=2243

Obviously, not everyone is going to feel led to move to the State of Montana (And those of us who live in Montana are glad of that!). There is no doubt in my mind, however, that God is putting it in the hearts of tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of people to prepare for a future (maybe near future) upheaval. An illustration of this feeling of imminent danger is this CNBC report:

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/41655262

As I have said repeatedly, the only hope for freedom’s survival is for individual states to draw a line in the sand and be willing to stand and fight for their own independence and sovereignty. And let’s be honest: not all states are going to be willing to do that. And if you don’t think yours will, you might want to relocate to one that will. That’s exactly what thousands of people all over America are doing. And if you think you cannot afford such a move, what will you be able to afford if and when the bottom falls out? Just a thought, folks.

Plus, people are sick and tired of these corporate churches not taking a stand for anything. That’s why we have people from all over America watching our livestreamed services at Liberty Fellowship every Sunday afternoon. (And that’s why so many people are even moving to Kalispell, Montana!) By the way, I will be preaching my fourth and final message on “The Truth About Romans 13” this Sunday, February 27, 2011, at 2:00 pm (MST). Technical difficulties prevented me from delivering this message last Sunday. Plus, this Sunday we will start broadcasting the ENTIRE SERVICE, not just my message. To watch the service at Liberty Fellowship this Sunday, go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17

And to view or download any of my first three messages on Romans 13 (or other messages), go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16

The newspapers and other corporate media outlets may not understand what is driving freedom-loving people to do what we are doing, but that’s ok. The truth is, we are fighting for their freedom too! Plus, I hold out hope that the Kellyn Browns of America are beginning to have their own eyes opened as well. Who knows, maybe one day Kellyn will write another column praising and thanking me for moving to Montana! Wouldn’t that be something?

Former Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin moved to Montana a few months ago and has vowed to mold the state into what he thinks it should look like. The potential 2012 gubernatorial candidate also has an opinion about those who lived here before him.

“There are a lot of people that were born in Montana but are not Montanans,” Baldwin said recently at the Kalispell rally. “And there are a lot of people, like me, who were not born in Montana but we have been Montanans our whole lives.”

I’ve only lived in the state 10 years, but apparently that has nothing to do with how “real” my residency is. The majority of my staff was born and raised here, but that doesn’t matter either. The litmus test for becoming a “real Montanan,” according to Baldwin, is determined by whether you agree with him.

Baldwin has not stated definitively whether he will run for Governor of Montana, but it seems likely if one examines his statements as of late about the prospect. The rumor is that he will seek to re-qualify the Constitution Party for the ballot, not run in the Republican primaries.

I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in NewsWithViews.com that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.

See the story at:

http://www.newswithviews.com:80/JBWilliams/williams130.htm

The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to PolyMontana.com to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:

http://polymontana.com/legislators/freedom-bills/

Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First” bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:

http://tinyurl.com/4aclefs

Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear” in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)

For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.

I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!

This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.

And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.

I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!

P.S. This Sunday, February 13, 2011, I will bring Part 3 of my message, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” This message will be livestreamed this Sunday afternoon, at 2:30 pm (MST).

To watch this presentation live this Sunday afternoon, go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17

Plus, my first two messages on Romans 13 (and many other messages) may be viewed or downloaded at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16

Johnkrii at Daily Paul via Third Party and Independent Daily

Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate. I was on his national conference call last night and he said himself, “we don’t want to lose my congressional seat”. He said he would continue in the Republican Presidential primary as long as the money and support are there, just like he’s been saying. But he very specifically mentioned his congressional seat and he was taking care of various votes and other business in congress the last couple days to ensure he would be ready for the primary vote for his seat in Texas next month. Texas has the “LBJ” law which allows anyone to run for congress and President at the same time. This is what Dr. Paul is doing and he cannot run as a third party candidate for President while running as a Republican for congress, the Texas Republican party would toss him out. So forget any talk about a third party run! It’s collect as many delegates as possible, get Dr. Paul a prime time speech during the RNC and get as much into the Republican platform as possible. End of story, that’s what we have to concentrate on.

At Salon, Alex Pareene writes

, Paul is headed to Iowa, to deliver one of those speeches that candidates have to give,

And

it is bad news for every other fringe candidate who hoped to be 2012′s Ron Paul. Dave Weigel already pointed out the obvious loser: former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson

Like Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Johnson has been a dues paying Libertarian Party member who continues to consider himself a libertarian while contemplating a likely race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Ron Paul remains a life member of the Libertarian Party, saying recently that “I believe the Libertarian Party has done a great service in promoting the libertarian philosophy, and I continue to have many friends and supporters in the Libertarian Party…”

In 2008, Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for President in the General Election, after appearing on stage with Baldwin, Ralph Nader, and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney to support the common goals of addressing the problems of war, debt, government violations of privacy and the federal reserve system. Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr said he agreed with those goals, but refused to be on stage with “people like” Cynthia McKinney.

More recently, Paul and Nader have had joint media appearances regarding a coalition against war and corporatism, and there had been speculation that Paul might run on an independent or third party ticket, perhaps with someone like Nader, McKinney, or Democratic Congressman and former presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich.

America was birthed in the spirit of liberty and baptized in the blood of patriots and tyrants. Leading the charge in America’s fight for independence was a courageous group of patriot-preachers that came to be known as the “Black Regiment.” I have written several columns on this subject. Suffice it to say here that I invite readers to take a look at my Black Regiment web page to learn more about this early American phenomenon. There is little doubt that without these stalwart Christian pastors, this country would not have come into existence. (I extended this call for a modern-day Black Regiment 5 years before Glenn Beck ever mentioned it.)

See my Black Regiment page at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=23

Plus, to read my column regarding the Black Regiment that was published in The New American magazine in 2009, go to:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/1789

So, what did these colonial preachers have that today’s preachers don’t? The better question might be: what did these colonial preachers NOT have that today’s preachers do? The answer? Two things: 1) an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation status, and 2) a 50-year misinterpretation of Romans chapter 13.

The now infamous 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) goes back to 1936 (the seeds of this Venus Fly Trap date back to 1872). But then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was the Dr. Frankenstein who, in 1954, unleashed this monster upon America. His motivation was: he did not like the way pastors and churches were opposing his liberal agenda, and he wanted to use the power of law to silence them. He, therefore, introduced verbiage to the IRC that churches were prohibited from influencing political legislation and supporting political campaigns, or risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Of course, colonial pastors didn’t have to worry about their churches being “incorporated” as State-created (and controlled) entities, or about IRS agents intimidating them regarding what they could or could not say. In early America, preachers were free men; they could say whatever they darned well pleased. Gasp! Beyond that, virtually everyone regarded preachers as being “God’s men,” not the “servants of men.”

Today, however, the average pastor has become the servant of the State and the church he pastors, more often than not, has become a creature of the State. It is an absolute fact that State-owned churches are killing America!

Dick Greb of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship in Westminster, Maryland, wrote:

“Many Americans find it disturbing that some of our churches today are little more than milquetoast corporations that fear our federal government more than the great I AM. Moreover, it can even be said that some preachers have the appearance of cringing, ‘politically correct’ cowards, rather than committed Godly men of fortitude with backbone, such as those we read of in the Bible.” (Source: Greb, Dick. “The 501(c)(3) Hallucination: A Bane to Liberty.” Reasonable Action Issue #244 Winter 2003.)

Dear reader, you can take this to the bank: the vast majority of pastors and board members of these 501(c)(3) corporations, when push comes to shove (and it always does), will demonstrate unconditional loyalty to the State. Plus, they will compromise or sacrifice any and every Bible doctrine or principle in order to preserve their tax-exempt status and stay on the smiley side of the IRC. They will also throw anyone under the old proverbial bus who might risk them falling out of favor with the IRS. (I can give painful and personal testimony to that fact!) Greb is right! Many, or most, of today’s pastors and church officers fear the federal government far more than they fear God.

Not only did colonial preachers not have to contend with putting their churches under some State-controlled corporation, they would never have allowed it to happen! Can one imagine John Leland, Jonas Clark, or John Witherspoon being told by any State official what he could or could not say, or what his church could or could not do? What a joke! These men were willing to go to prison or even the grave in order to remain faithful to their spiritual calling and to their political and moral convictions!

The other thing that colonial preachers did not suffer from was a 50-year indoctrination of a misinterpretation of Romans 13.

This “Submit-to-the-government-no-matter-what” doctrine (using Romans 13 as the pretext) is a satanically inspired lie designed to turn free men and women into slaves of the state! Students of history know that Adolf Hitler encouraged German pastors and churches to promote this same fallacious philosophy among the German people. Gee! I wonder why? And according to Erwin Lutzer’s book, “Hitler’s Cross” (must reading, I might add), out of the more than 14,000 evangelical churches and pastors in Germany at the time, only about 800 remained faithful to Scripture and opposed Hitler’s brand of state worship. If my math is correct, that’s about 5%. And it would not surprise me if 5% is about the percentage of pastors and churches in America today that are opposing this modern-day worship of the state.

At this point, instead of embellishing upon Romans 13, I am going to insert a commercial. I began a series of messages on Romans 13 last Sunday at Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana. In fact, by the time you read this, Part 1 of my message on Romans 13 will be available online.

To view my message, “The Truth About Romans 13, Part 1,” go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3014

I will continue my series on Romans 13 this Sunday, February 6, 2011. I invite readers to watch this address live on the Internet. To view this livestreaming broadcast, go to:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” So said Edmund Burke. And, unfortunately, the good men that are mostly doing nothing and allowing evil to triumph in our land are the good men (and women) of America’s churches who have either been intimidated by the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation status, or who have been put into a sheepish, servile, Satan-induced coma from an overdose of misapplied Romans
13 poison.

To quote the famous Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, “It is the devil that stirs up his instruments, wicked men [in government or without], to persecute the people of God; tyrants and persecutors are the devil’s tools, though they gratify their own sinful malignity, and know not that they are actuated by a diabolical malice.” (Source: Matthew Henry’s Commentaries on the Bible, notes on Revelation 2:10)

Yes, the Black Regiment preachers of colonial America helped lead America’s fight for freedom and independence. But, they did not have their hands out to the IRS, or their minds and hearts numbed into apathy and indifference by decades of misuse and abuse of Romans chapter 13.

P.S. My son, Timothy Baldwin, who is a historian, author, and constitutional attorney, is in the process of publishing a new book entitled, “Romans 13, The True Meaning of Submission.” I have read it. In the similitude of Tim’s first book, “Freedom For A Change,” this book is an absolutely brilliant and scholarly presentation of the true meaning of Romans 13. Watch my web site, or Tim’s web site, for information regarding this new book’s release.

My web site:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

Tim’s web site:

http://libertydefenseleague.com/

And, if you have not yet ordered Tim’s book, “Freedom For A Change,” I enthusiastically recommend it to you. Order it here:

http://libertydefenseleague.com/freedom-for-a-change/buy-from-the-author/

To a packed out crowd of over 500 Montanans who had assembled in minus zero weather to hear me speak, I made the statement, “Not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies.” Indeed, being able to identify our friends is more than half the battle.

When I spoke of identifying friends or enemies, I was talking about one’s overall positive or negative contribution to the principles of liberty. I will say it again, not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies. This is difficult for many Christians to wrap their brains around, I know.

I will go one step further: in America today, claiming a new birth Christian experience means absolutely nothing when it comes to defending liberty principles. After traveling more than 60,000 miles over the past two years to virtually every crack and corner of this vast country, my studied observation is that the ratio of Christians to non-Christians who are true freedom fighters is probably no better than 50%. I will further say that often times Christians are actually greater enemies to freedom than are non-Christians. I never thought I would hear myself say that, but, today, I really believe it.

I am so thankful I was brought to Christ at a young age by sincere, genuine Christian parents, because if I was looking at the attitudes and actions of many professing Christians today, I would be totally repulsed by both Christians and churches. In many ways, I am anyway! And I totally understand why many unbelievers never want to darken the door of a church. I especially understand it on behalf of those freedom-minded unbelievers who properly recognize the Church as a willing accomplice of the emerging Orwellian society that the elites in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere are quickly creating.

Can one imagine virtually any prominent Christian spokesman from the so-called “Religious Right” in America today saying, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom–go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” Yet, in the mid-1700s, there was no more outspoken Christian than the author of those words: Samuel Adams.

Imagine any modern-day Christian leader saying, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Who said that? Our first President, George Washington, who at his first inauguration put the Bible to his lips, kissed it and said, “So help me God.”

Yet, many, if not most, of today’s Christian leaders and pastors view government, not as a “dangerous servant” and “fearful master,” but as much a master as God Himself, and themselves as its humble servant. In fact, when many Christians are forced to choose between submission to government and submission to God, they will choose government every time. Believe me, I’ve tasted this bitter pill up close and personal!

Or, imagine a prominent Christian leader speaking these words today: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Of course, the famous Virginian, Patrick Henry, spoke those words. And anyone who has studied the life of Henry knows there was not a finer Christian gentleman who ever graced American soil than he. And remember, these words were not spoken against a foreign government, but against the government to which he was subject.

In fact, if one wants to incur the ire and derision of the average Christian pastor today, just start quoting anything from America’s Founding Fathers.

All over America, FEMA representatives are instructing willing pastors to assist the federal government by encouraging their congregants to surrender their firearms, should the President declare a “national emergency.” All over America, pastors and churches are eagerly accepting tax-generated “faith based initiative” monies. All over America, pastors (and church boards) are scared silly to do anything that might jeopardize their church’s IRS tax-exempt status. All over America, pastors are misusing and abusing Romans 13 to justify turning free men and women into government slaves.

I am reminded of the trenchant words of Martin Luther, who said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.”

Luther was right! When it comes to defending the great (not little) principles of freedom and liberty against which Satan and his minions are currently attacking, it seems that most Christians and pastors and filled with “flight” and “disgrace.”

For example, why is it left to people such as Jesse Ventura to fight these Nazi-like, sexually invasive, humiliating harassments by TSA agents at America’s airports? Where is Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, or Rick Warren?

See Ventura’s story at:

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-strikes-back-with-lawsuit-against-tsa/

Furthermore, where were America’s pastors and Christians when George W. Bush was creating this gargantuan surveillance society that is now snooping and spying on virtually everything we do, say, earn, or purchase? Where were they when George H.W. Bush’s attack dogs killed Vicki Weaver and her son, Sammy, outside Ruby Ridge, Idaho? Where were they when Bill Clinton’s and Janet Reno’s Stormtroopers were murdering over 80 American citizens (most of whom were old men, women, and children) outside Waco, Texas? They “flinched!” And they continue to “flinch!”

It is going to be very interesting to watch how this freedom fight evolves. I suspect that when push comes to shove and the lines of demarcation are finally drawn, it will shock us who winds up on what side. I stand by my statement: not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies.

To view the live stream from Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana, this Sunday (and every Sunday at approximately 2:25pm MDT),
click here:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=2606

The shootings of at least 18 people (6 killed, at least 12 wounded) in Tucson, Arizona, has predictably ignited a firestorm of anti-gun, anti-right, and anti-anything not “liberal” diatribes from the typical big government talking heads in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Anti-freedom congressmen railed for more gun control, including resurrecting Bill Clinton’s so-called Assault Weapons ban, and other laws restricting “high capacity” magazines (the assailant reportedly used a Glock 9mm in the attack).

If the newly elected Republican majority in the US House of Representatives has a political death wish for 2012, they will stupidly facilitate more gun control legislation. If there is anything the vast majority of grassroots Americans (from just about anywhere) are absolutely sick and tired of, it is gun control legislation. The vast majority of Americans firmly support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the shooting in Tucson notwithstanding. In fact, since the hastily passed Assault Weapons ban expired, a majority of Americans has been truly educated regarding the intrinsic protection that personal firearms possession affords. Thanks to notable researchers such as John Lott, most Americans understand the veracity of writer Robert Heinlein’s sagacious counsel: “An armed society is a polite society.” So true.

I invite readers to study Lott’s recent column regarding the Arizona shootings at:

http://tinyurl.com/4939z9c

I just spoke last week to a packed house here in my home State of Montana (with more than 500 people in attendance who came out on a Tuesday night in sub-zero temperatures to hear me), and I would estimate that twenty percent of them (or more) were carrying their own personal side arms. I would pity the poor idiot who would have attempted to duplicate Loughner’s attack in that assemblage. Obviously, guns in the hands of the citizenry are far and away more of a deterrent to violent crime than a contributor to it.

Then there was the attempt by liberal Democrats to try to connect the shooter, Jared Loughner, to the Tea Party movement and anything else “conservative.” Turns out, Loughner was much more infatuated with Karl Marx than he was with Ron Paul. Plus, apparently, police discovered a makeshift satanic shrine in Loughner’s back yard, which, I am sure, is disappointing to Morris Dees, who loves to paint Christians as “extremists” and “dangerous militia members.”

See:

http://tinyurl.com/4zecamg

So, was Loughner a lunatic? No doubt, there are some crazy people out there. Or was it something else?

The European Union (EU) Times posted a report on January 9, 2011, that calls the shooting an “assassination.” And according to the report, the target was not Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but rather Federal Judge John Roll. (Roll died in the Tucson attack.)

Roll, the Times reports, had issued a preliminary ruling against the Obama administration’s use of an Executive Order (EO) to confiscate targeted monies of the American citizenry–in much the same way that an EO by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was used to confiscate the American people’s privately held gold in 1933.

To the many constitutionalists I have spoken with who are familiar with the judge’s record, Roll was truly one of the “good guys.” When it came to preserving the protections afforded the people of these States united by upholding the US Constitution, Judge Roll seemed to shine.

See the EU Times report at:

http://tinyurl.com/279rpj6

Let me hasten to interject at this point that this report reads like reports I’ve read before by someone called Sorcha Faal. My friend and trusted researcher, Joel Skousen, suggests that Faal (whoever he or she is) is unreliable at best, and may be a disinformation agent at worst. I personally do not know. What I do know is that Judge Roll is dead, and we lost one of the best federal judges on the bench.

Do I believe that highly-positioned rogue elements within central governments (any national government) could or would use MK-Ultra-style techniques to assassinate unwanted or problem people (to them)? I think one would have to be naïve to NOT believe that such dastardly deeds are possible. Was Loughner a “Manchurian Candidate” then? Obviously, we will never know.

Speaking of losing good men: freedom lovers lost a good ally and friend recently with the passing of Aaron Zelman, who was the Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Zelman was a tireless defender of the Second Amendment. I did not know him personally (my loss), but he and I communicated occasionally via email. He told me he was an avid reader of my columns, and I was certainly one of his biggest fans. He died relatively young at only age 64.

Here is the JPFO web site address:

http://jpfo.org/

So, America lost two good men recently: Federal Judge John Roll and JPFO Executive Director Aaron Zelman. I trust many of us will step up to the plate and take our place on the firing line.

Chuck Baldwin hasn’t stated outright that he plans to run for governor of Montana. But in a speech to a packed room at the Outlaw Inn in Kalispell last week, he all but declared his candidacy, describing the prospect as, “so thrilling I just get goose bumps.”

“Because so many people have asked me, I am seriously thinking about it,” Baldwin said. “There has to be a governor willing to put his life on the line to defend the Constitution.”

Baldwin, the 2008 presidential nominee for the national Constitution Party, described waking in the middle of the night and imagining himself, as governor of Montana, writing a letter to the federal government taking control of all the state’s national parks, forests and Wilderness areas.

“I write, ‘all of the land that you claim is federal has just been reclaimed by the state of Montana,’” Baldwin said. “All these wilderness areas and U.N. wilderness is just an excuse to enslave the citizenry.”

As Montana’s chief executive, Baldwin said he would also reject the federal government in the manner of Arizona’s adoption of a strict and controversial immigration law, which is being challenged by the U.S. Justice Department . . .

A standing-room-only crowd came to hear former Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin speak Tuesday night.

The Outlaw Inn event, sponsored by the Flathead Liberty Bell group, was the first public speech Baldwin has made since moving to the Flathead Valley from Pensacola, Fla., late last year.

Baldwin, 58, told attendees why he believes Montana is “the tip of the spear” when it comes to fighting for constitutionally protected freedoms.

“The people here have a hunger and thirst for freedom unlike anywhere else in the United States,” he said.

Baldwin noted that he plans to start a new congregation called Liberty Fellowship. The entire article is worth a read, but one detail may be interesting to political junkies.

Several from the audience asked Baldwin if he would run for governor. “I have to give that serious consideration,” he said. “I’m not a wealthy man. I do not have any funds to throw into the fray.

Ironically, Baldwin was not on the ballot in Montana for President; instead, Ron Paul was nominated for that position by the Constitution Party affiliate.